Are Those Who Pose Nude, Sluts?

Yes, they are. They may be prosperous sluts, or poor sluts, or pretty sluts, or plain sluts, but sluts just the same.

Recently a PAC ran a political ad showing Donald Trump’s wife nude with the caption, “Meet Melania Trump, your next First Lady.” The text continues, “Or, you could support Ted Cruz on Tuesday.” Cruz or his people had no connection with the ad since the law prohibits any association with PACs. My concern today is not the political decision by the PAC that ran the ad but the personal decision to pose nude.

My critics will charge, as they often do, that Christians believe that the body is inherently evil but that is pure applesauce! The body is the creation of God as the Psalmist wrote, we are “fearfully and wonderfully made.” Furthermore, such critics have no knowledge of the Song of Solomon, a very sexual book. However, the body is, at least for Christians, the Temple of the Holy Spirit. It is a sin to mistreat the body with illegal drugs, tobacco, alcohol, overeating, overworking, not resting, and exposing the body to those who have no right to see it. It is to be enjoyed only by a spouse–of the opposite sex. Christians should be concerned with dress, deportment, decorum, and decency.

Up front, I know I am in the minority and will be portrayed as a Neanderthal (but then, we now know that they were totally human) or a prude. I plead guilty. The nude photo (and there are more photos of her practically nude) was not made of some giddy, stupid teenager looking for attention. They were made of Melania Trump sixteen years ago when she was a model and Trump’s girlfriend. The fact she was a model or Trump’s girlfriend makes no difference in whether it was right or wrong.

One defender said that “we are confronted with the opinion that a woman who expresses herself with her body is not to be taken seriously, and is somehow less or not good enough.” Yes, it does show that she is less–less in personal attributes that matter. Any woman (or man) who exposes her/his body has a problem with little character, convictions, and much crassness. The defender went on to say “And somehow, the fact that she has a body — and showed it — makes her not worthy of respect, according to the folks behind the ad.” Yes, I think that sums it up. Such a person does not deserve respect because she has no self-respect. The reality that she is beautiful, speaks five languages, has a jewelry line, can sting three sentences in a row that makes sense, and has a son is irrelevant.

I would have been horrified if my future wife had posed like that and would have broken our engagement. If she had been my adult daughter I would have broken fellowship with her although still loving her. A husband is responsible for his wife and daughters’ actions. Are you ready for this? They are accountable to him and once a daughter is married the accountability transfers to her husband!

Since I am in deep, deep water I might as well go deeper. I have been to Rome and Greece many times and have seen their famous paintings and sculptures and I think many of them are scandalous, salacious, and even slutty. I’m aware that it is supposed to make a difference because it is “great” art, even religious art but that is a silly, shallow, and shameful defense.

Here’s the bottom line: it is wrong to display one’s body to satisfy anyone–except a spouse. Often it is done by teens to get attention and that often comes back to bite them in their derrière a few years later. Then, they usually complain about an invasion of privacy! Simple answer to that: keep your private parts private except for your spouse.

Celebrities who whine about leaked nude photos are hypocrites as well as sluts. They never should have posed nude for the camera.

At a gallery of nude photos and sculptures all the spectators must be fully clothed as they look at totally naked bodies! Would it be acceptable if all the spectators were nude like the art? Why not?

I am told that this position would hurt Christian artists but if their work harms others, they should refuse to produce that kind of “art.” Why should Christian art be held to a lower standard than the Christian himself? I am told that artists, maybe most artists, do not intend to be salacious but it doesn’t matter as to the artist’s intent if the art causes others to lust. The Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 8:13 “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.”

God gives some directions in this matter and obeying Him will keep us from sin, shame, and scandal.

Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria (approx. 20 B.C.-40 A.D.) expressed the Hebrew view of nudity: “neither is it right for men to mix with women when they have laid aside their garments, but each of the sexes ought to avoid the sight of the other when they are naked, in accordance with the promptings of nature.” The Jews were right.

The Bible clearly teaches that the body is not inherently sinful but it does teach that it is sinful to publically display it. When Adam and Eve were sinless, they were not concerned with being nude but were ashamed immediately following the Fall. God then clothed them with animal skins to cover their nakedness, an example of the shedding of blood being necessary to cover sins.

In Exodus 28, God gave specific instructions how the high priest was to dress. Verse 42 commands, “And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach.” Pagan priests were often naked when sacrificing to Bacchus but God demanded a much higher standard: purity and decency. So men are to be concerned with exposing their body.

In I Tim. 2:9, Paul tells women to wear “modest apparel” which was the stola, a long loose robe worn by women in ancient Rome and Greece. It was a long piece of cloth sewed up on both sides, leaving room only for the arms; at the top, a piece was cut out through which the head passed. It hung down to the feet in front and back, and was girded with the zona (also segment) round the body, just under the breasts. It was gathered on each shoulder with a band or buckle. Some of the Greek women wore them open on each side, from the bottom up above the knee, so as to display a part of the thigh. These were termed fainomhridev, or showers (to look at) the thigh; but it was, in general, only young girls or immodest women who wore them that way.

I believe that Timothy passage holds true today. Only immodest (or very foolish, silly girls) expose themselves in any generation.

When Christ healed the wild man by casting out his demons in Mark 5, the demonic man stopped running around naked, stopped cutting himself, and put on some clothes and sat still listening to Jesus. This passage reminds us that when people get right with God they will have nothing to do with demons; will not cut, pierce, or abuse their flesh; will listen to Christ; and will be modestly dressed.

Someone should tell the Trumps that money might buy the White House but not class or character or convictions. If I were the Trumps’ pastor I would tell her to keep her clothes on–except in the bedroom–or face church discipline!

Boys’ new book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? was published this week by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? click here. An eBook edition is also available.

EVOLUTION

Fact, Fraud or Faith?

by Don Boys, Ph.D.

EVOLUTION

Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position. In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is scientific while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.

Purchase Now from Amazon

Posted in: morality

Leave a Comment () ↓

Leave a Comment via Facebook